OMG - I hope not Arnold! He's enougth of an idiot and embarrassment as a governor.

2:38 pm November 4, 2008

sylvie chen wrote :

He is ambitious in promoting the 1 million solar home grid project to get commercial and residential dwellings operate as solar to electricity providers. It allows owner to sell back surplus energy to utility. Trouble is the energy commission has capped the maximum someone can get back to $200 per year. That leaves a lot of money on the table for utilities to pass to their shareholders.

2:44 pm November 4, 2008

Bill Woods wrote :

Home owners are getting paid the retail price for wholesale power, so I don't think they've much of a beef.

4:24 pm November 4, 2008

Bill Peschel wrote :

Obama promised the Chronicle no new coal plants without clean coal technology, and no nuclear plants without a way of disposing the waste. He has no problems with Americans paying higher prices for power in the hopes that technology will find a way to provide cheaper solar and wind power.

This means that Obama is willing into inflict financial pain on Americans deeper than what we'll suffer in this (more probable) recession.

The irony is that the people who will suffer the most will be the ones who voted for him.

Recently, I have heard a lot of conservatives talking about how "safe" nuclear power is. Is it possible that they don't remember the nuclear-meltdown that is still affecting the Town of Chernobyl? They don't remember the Three-Mile Island debacle? Can it be that they never head about what happened in Japan a number of years back? Nuclear power is not safe--it has never been, and never will be safe to use on Earth, because there is no way to dispose of the radioactive waste which results from nuclear fission.
Check out my website at: http://www.FreetheGods.com

11:14 am November 5, 2008

Tom S wrote :

Arnold as Energy Secretary also conveniently eliminates a Republican governor, since the Lt. Gov in California is a Democrat. Perhaps this is part of your rationale too?

2:44 pm November 5, 2008

kit mcgurn wrote :

Can the author of this blog post please add a link to his claim that "the state’s own economic analysis makes clear reaching those targets will require a wholesale transformation of the economy". For those of us who are policy and data wonks this, a link to those reports/analysis would be much appreciated.

4:46 pm November 5, 2008

tat wrote :

Uh, he is a Republican. Except for Tom's interesting conspiracy theory, why would he even consider it? Aren't there any Democrats who are supportive of his energy policy?

6:23 pm November 5, 2008

Virginia Carole wrote :

David S - you obviously only know what you 'read' and no real facts. Having worked in the industry for most of my career, I can tell you those are only scare tatics you are using. The examples you use are also few & far between compared to dangers from other energy sources. Solar energy has much more potential for danger than Nuclear energy. Don't get me started on burning wood and its danger to human life. Educate yourself!

9:46 pm November 5, 2008

Everette Carnes wrote :

Bill P.: One of the reasons I voted for Obama is that I believe "no new coal plants without clean coal technology and no nuclear plants without a (safe) way of disposing of the waste" is the way to go. If costs are increased, so be it. I think new and additional employment will make it worth while, and it would be better than breathing the air.

6:08 am November 6, 2008

tat wrote :

Virginia: sounds like you need to put down the Kool-Aid and educate yourself. The statement that solar energy has more potential for danger than nuclear is silly. All forms of power generation have some danger, but even though the history of nuclear is generally safe, the potential danger is catastrophic. Wood (as does all forms of combustion) does have danger to human life but it is lower than coal and about par with gas.

12:52 pm November 6, 2008

gkgfk wrote :

obama sucks nigger dick

12:55 pm November 6, 2008

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wrote :

WSJ. You should be monitoring your comments section (gkgfk - November 6, 2008 at 12:52 pm).

10:14 am November 7, 2008

Dr. Gregory Greenman wrote :

David Scott is INCORRECT in claiming nuclear power is unsafe. Chernobyl is NOTHING like a US reactor. Chernobyl is the "Hindenberg" of nuclear power. Should one be afraid of flying on a Boeing 777 because of what happened to the Hindenberg?

As for Three Mile Island; NOBODY was injured; and there hasn't been another accident in the 3 decades since. Can the airline industry make the same claim? But we don't call airliners "unsafe".

As for nuclear waste; the USA should do what France, Japan, Sweden and other countries do - reprocess / recycle. If one does that; the longest lived isotope in the waste is Cesium-137 with a half-life of 30 years. Hence NO thousand year problem.

10:18 am November 7, 2008

Dr. Gregory Greenman wrote :

tat - Unfortunately, you too have fallen for the "potential danger is catastrophic" scare tactic. Could you elaborate as to what you think could happen that is "catastrophic"?

There have been a lot of scenarios of nuclear power plant catastrophes - but they have ZERO basis in science - they are just scare tactics.

10:46 am November 7, 2008

Steve Pottle wrote :

Please read the Pottle Energy Plan (www.PottlePlan.com).

Key points:

1) Powering cars with CNG is not viable.
2) Coal, nuclear and oil have to be part of the plan.
3) France gets 80% of its power from nuclear, so the United States can build more.
4) There is a chronic shortage of wind turbines worldwide, and no where near the 100,000 or more required in the Pickens Plan.
5) Solar has a very bright future (sorry for the pun) and we believe that it is more promising than wind.
6) Wind is expensive and requires huge tax subsidies, which the American people might not yet fully appreciate.
7) Green jobs are what we need but at what cost to the people who work in the coal mines of West Vrirginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc.

Add a Comment

About Environmental Capital

Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the shifting energy and environmental landscape. The Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson is the lead writer. Environmental Capital is led by Journal energy reporter Russell Gold, and includes contributions from other writers at the Journal, WSJ.com, and Dow Jones Newswires. Write us at environmentalcapital@wsj.com.